Recruiting, Misery, and the OFCCP

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws…Just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with. – Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand (1957)

During a phone conversation last week, someone reminded me that since February 6, 2006, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has changed the life of today’s recruiter in the most fundamental ways. I agreed, but only after considerable thought did I realize that it has done a lot more than change just the life of recruiters. It has also needlessly burdened recruiting/HR organizations in a host of ways.

Three quick examples of this burden are as follows:

  • The onerous addition of yet more resources they now must provide in order to attempt to achieve compliance.
  • The new struggle to develop and maintain expertise and consistency in dealing with confusing regulatory issues that many still do not really understand (nor wish to; great recruiters want to fill positions, not keep endless nonsensical records).
  • Provided another level of angst and distraction generated by the need to comply with an additional government program that will accomplish nothing, as fairness can never be legislated.

If that is not arduous enough, there is now the addition of yet another absurd pressure: a new type of government audit, which is just what corporate America needs as it struggles on the one hand to comply, and on the other hand to be nimble enough to be competitive with other countries. (By the way, when the government chooses the companies to audit, will it be with the same level of “fairness” the OFCCP demands of the recruiting industry?)

Not only do many of the countries with which we compete not have to worry about such absurd regulations and absurd interference, but they probably also fall on the floor laughing when (and if) they ever understand what hoops we have to go through just to hire a new employee. Honestly, a recruiter complying with the OFCCP should get the Purple Heart for making a hire these days. (As an aside, if you think that the recordkeeping is not oppressive, I refer you to www.icims.com; see “Recordkeeping Requirements” on page two.)

The OFCCP is brought to you by the same set of Einsteins who devised the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 as a reaction to loss of public faith in accounting and reporting practices. I can only say that if you liked that type of interference, you are going to love the OFCCP and the audits that follow from what I suspect will be some of the least recruiting/employment-savvy individuals alive.

Just as Sarbanes-Oxley was created to keep criminals from pillaging the very organizations to which their well-being has been entrusted (many insiders actually think Sarbanes-Oxley does more economic damage than it can ever prevent, but let’s try to deal with one government catastrophe at a time), the OFCCP is designed to create a level playing field and demonstrate that all “Internet candidates” are considered equally for employment opportunities.

I am, of course, loathe to introduce any reality into our government’s policy development, but if you believe that Sarbanes-Oxley is going to keep the criminals from looting, you are frightfully wrong. And, if you think that the OFCCP is going to legislate “fairness,” you are once again frightfully wrong as you need to look more closely at the nature of capitalism and how life in corporate America actually works. (Capitalism promises many things, but fairness and stability are not among them.)

Saving search strings, taking complete notes on conversations with candidates, and being able to defend why you did not choose to interview a candidate who meets minimal qualifications accomplish nothing meaningful. What they do accomplish is endless bureaucracy and absurd process over tangible results, all from a government that makes an organization’s ability to be successful all the more difficult.

Article Continues Below

Do you ever wonder about the nature and experience of the architects of this Frankenstein?

  • Were they progressive thinkers/futurists of great experience with visionary leadership in the employment/human capital world?
  • Did they have a depth of knowledge, experience, and understanding of the problems associated with hiring in a global marketplace, including all of its legal, demographic, and business complexities?
  • Did their backgrounds also extend to Internet recruiting and technology utilization, such that they could develop a program that would be realistic in terms of meeting objectives while still being manageable and cost effective?
  • Did they have a clue as to how recruiters work and what our job is all about?
  • Did they carefully document and monitor the results of the pilot programs and focus groups with recruiting and HR leaders? (Did they even do any pilot programs and focus groups in the first place?)

If you think there are any “yes” answers to any of these questions, you need to rethink your government and how it works, because these are the same “good ole boys” that praised Michael Brown, the director of FEMA, during Hurricane Katrina. (I suspect his last position as Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association made him the logical choice for that job.) Are these the same people who developed the OFCCP?

Please understand that I am not opposed to fairness as it relates to a level playing field and/or the concept of diversity to which it is inexorably linked. Growing up in Brooklyn, I was a fan of diversity long before it became corporate America’s poster boy and the moral equivalent of driving a hybrid and quoting Al Gore.

What I am opposed to is our government’s ongoing need to insert itself into the private business sector with an ill-conceived and poorly thought-out solution. I am even more appalled when they create unspeakable levels of new work and solve nothing. Short of standing next to each person in the hiring process with a gun, no law will make things fair. (In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, it soon becomes clear that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”)

Not to worry: We will adjust and deal with the burden, the nonsense, and the absurdity. What concerns me is what they will come up with next. I get the feeling they are looking at the recruiting industry closely, very closely. You never wanted to work for the government? Guess what: You already are, and you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Enjoy.

By the way, isn’t it time you read Atlas Shrugged? It will rock your thinking.

Howard Adamsky has been recruiting since 1985 and is still alive to talk about it. A consultant, writer, public speaker, and educator, he works with organizations to support their efforts to build great companies and coaches others on how to do the same. He has over 20 years' experience in identifying, developing, and implementing effective solutions for organizations struggling to recruit and retain top talent. An internationally published author, he is a regular contributor to ERE Media, a member of the Human Capital Institute's Small and Mid-Sized business panel, a Certified Internet Recruiter, and rides one of the largest production motorcycles ever built. His book, Hiring and Retaining Top IT Professionals/The Guide for Savvy Hiring Managers and Job Hunters Alike (Osborne McGraw-Hill) is in local bookstores and available online. He is also working on his second book, The 25 New Rules for Today's Recruiting Professional. See twitter.com/howardadamsky if you are so inclined for the occasional tweet. Email him at H.adamsky@comcast.net

Topics

19 Comments on “Recruiting, Misery, and the OFCCP

  1. Howard,

    Once again, you are guilty of writing an article which attempts to inject common sense into our recruiting world.

    I had not read the recordkeeping requirements of the OFCCP. It is so ridiculous that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The thought of keeping track of every search, and every permutation of every search, and having to track and explain my response to every resume I see is daunting. I am faced with a choice: keep records or make placements. But that’s what you get when the people making the decisions have no experience with the process.

    Thanks for the article.

  2. Great article Howard. Coincidentally, after several weeks of reading and note taking, I am just about to finish Altas Shrugged (on page 950). At over 1000 pages, Altas Shrugged is a commitment, but certainly worth the effort. 50 years later, it is still an important and relevant book.

    Nice article and nice associated quote.

    Take care,
    -neal

  3. Nicely stated, as always, Howard.

    The yawning chasm that divides reality and the universe in which well-intentioned (always, nyet?) bureuacrats reside just got, as if this were conceivable, wider (and here I thought the ADA was the end of that road; how naive was that?).

    Being an eternal optimist, howver, I applaud this. The donkey eventually bucks the load (East Germany, late 80’s) or stomps the rider (Boston Harbor, 1773), but only if either becomes intolerable.

    Same as it ever was.

  4. Elizabeth Kubler Ross outlined the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. It has been nearly two years since the OFCCP implemented the Internet Applicant ruling. It is time to move on to acceptance.

    The OFCCP regulation was in response to the electronic nature of recruitment and because of our calls for a clear definition of an applicant in the electronic age. The recordkeeping requirements were in also in response to the recognition that systemic discrimination, unintentional as it may be, exists. It is our responsibility as recruiters to find the best candidate for the position.

    The requirements make our lives as recruiters more difficult, but it is also affords us an opportunity to review our practices for fairness and broadens the pool of candidates to include individuals that we might have unintentionally overlooked.

    When dealt lemons, make lemonade.

  5. It’s the classic battle. We live in a capitalistic society governed by a socialist bureaucracy, talk about a built in conflict of interest. When the dogooder/liberal/socialist realizes that no matter what they would like us to think, make us think, do or make us do has no effect, then maybe they will cease an desist…..but I doubt it, their bureaucratic/government job depends on it. Ironically, the ‘feel good’ side of the dogooder falls galactically short in this never-ending endeavor, at least from the recruiters point of view, no? Competition is what drives the economy, not ‘equality’. Wordy enough for you Rand fans? lol

  6. I LOVED THIS ARTICLE! I think we should organize recruiters and recruiting leaders across the US to lobby the government on this. There is NO LOGIC to these rules and if anything it makes recruiting less fair. As a recruiter it causes you to focus on the wrong things…paperwork…versus the best fit for the organization. I think the rules are unnatural and create a level of bureuacracy that only people who have never recruited can possibly create. I often wonder how rich this office is becoming?

  7. Howard,

    Nice aroma of writing with a hint of palatable reading and a smooth finish.
    I will first state I do not enjoy these extra things to do each day, week, month or quarter. I am not a fan of the ambiguous ‘definition’ of an Internet applicant and anytime the simplicity of recruiting is invaded by the complexity of ‘red tape’, I throw my head back and scream!

    With that being said or screamed, I must now put a cork in it and see another side.

    What needs to be noted of these ‘laws’ and ‘regulations’ is, we created this monster through the allowance of inequality. Now, while it was neither you nor I who actually did the creation, we sure as hell did nothing to change it in recent years; did we? Sure, we stood in front of our corporate ‘peeps’ and provided philosophical insight into equality and compliance and diversity. But did we truly try to influence the leadership or were we merely whiners who tossed ‘law’ into a vat to step on as a means to escape our own liability? We then stood back and said, ‘well, we informed them but they did nothing’. In the end, the OFCCP succumbed to pressures for a definition. How can we complain? Corporate America was the one telling them to define something? Even if they didn’t define it to the fullest or our liking, at least they took a stand.
    Do I like these regulations and all the extra items I must do? ABSOLUTEY NOT!!!! Do I have a choice? I did but the vine ripened.
    In the end we stomp on the grapes of accountability and whine!

  8. Well said, Howard.

    It seems to me that many of the businesses that sell services and consulting to the recruiting industry are just as guilty. They use the fear of the government to hawk their wares (ATS, etc.). If they really wanted to serve recruiters, they would push back MUCH more against such tyranny. Sadly, they see such government regulation as a blessing that will help them increase their sales. The government is making us slaves and many who advertise in our inboxes are selling shackles.

  9. One of the challenges we face as a profession is being an advocate for ourselves and the companies or clients that we work for and with. As Howard alludes to, the OFCCP regs are a small representation of the many areas of employee life that the government has chosen to regulate with little or no insight as to the overall impact on productivity and reasonableness. I would be interested in others’ take on how we more effectively spread the word and lobby for regs that are more rational and workable. Does this happen on a national level, state or local level and who’s going to take up the banner? It doesn’t appear to happening very effectively now.

  10. Thank you for your article, Howard.
    Long live Ayn Rand! Long Live Ludwig von Mises!
    Your article has opened my eyes to the fact that we are rapidly descending into a Stalinist police state where people live in fear of bettering their lot through the sacred workings of the unregulated Free Market.
    These statistics found in Wikipedia (below) show exactly this.
    OOOPS! My mistake- these statistics show precisely the opposite!
    (Perhaps it?s due to the perpetual vigilance of the ?Guardians of the Invisible Hand of Free Enterprise? like the corporate lobbyists on K Street in Washington?)

    Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving Everybody,
    Keith Halperin

    ======================================================

    Ease of Doing Business Index
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Ease of Doing Business Index is an index created by the World Bank.[1] Higher rankings indicate better, usually simpler, regulations for businesses and stronger protections of property rights. Empirical research funded by the World Bank shows that the effect of improving these regulations on economic growth is strong.[2]
    edit

    Economy
    Ease of Doing Business Rank
    Starting a Business
    Dealing with Licenses
    Employing Workers
    Registering Property
    Getting Credit
    Protecting Investors
    Paying Taxes
    Trading Across Borders
    Enforcing Contracts
    Closing a Business

    Singapore
    1 9 5 1 13 7 2 2 1 4 2
    New Zealand
    2 3 2 13 1 3 1 9 16 13 16
    United States
    3 4 24 1 10 7 5 76 15 8 18
    Hong Kong, China
    4 13 60 23 58 2 3 3 3 1 15
    Denmark
    5 18 6 10 39 13 19 13 2 30 7
    United Kingdom
    6 6 54 21 19 1 9 12 27 24 10
    Canada
    7 2 26 19 28 7 5 25 39 43 4
    Ireland
    8 5 20 37 79 7 5 6 20 39 6
    Australia
    9 1 52 8 27 3 51 41 34 11 14
    Iceland
    10 14 23 42 8 13 64 27 11 4 12
    Norway
    11 28 55 94 6 36 15 16 4 9 3
    Japan
    12 44 32 17 48 13 12 105 18 21 1
    Finland
    13 16 39 127 17 26 51 83 5 7 5
    Sweden
    14 22 17 107 7 36 51 42 6 53 19
    Thailand
    15 36 12 49 20 36 33 89 50 26 44
    Switzerland
    16 35 29 20 12 26 158 15 37 25 33
    Estonia
    17 20 14 156 21 48 33 31 7 29 50
    Georgia
    18 10 11 4 11 48 33 102 64 42 105
    Belgium
    19 19 37 36 161 48 12 65 48 22 9
    Germany
    20 71 16 137 47 3 83 67 10 15 29

    ================================================================

    Indices of Economic Freedom
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The annual surveys Economic Freedom of the World and Index of Economic Freedom are two indices which attempt to measure the degree of economic freedom, using a definition for this similar to laissez-faire capitalism, in the world’s nations. These indices have in turn been used in many peer-reviewed studies which have found many beneficial effects of more economic freedom.[1][2] There are various criticisms, for example that the important part of economic freedom may be efficient rule of law and functioning property rights, rather than low taxes and a small state.

    Yearly worldwide index of economic freedom
    published by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation

    Rank Country Index
    2006 2006 2005 2004 2003
    1 Hong Kong
    1.28 1.35 1.34 1.44
    2 Singapore
    1.56 1.60 1.61 1.61
    3 Ireland
    1.58 1.70 1.79 1.73
    4 Luxembourg
    1.60 1.63 1.76 1.68
    5 Iceland
    1.74 1.81 2.05 1.98
    5 United Kingdom
    1.74 1.75 1.84 1.88
    7 Estonia
    1.75 1.65 1.76 1.68
    8 Denmark
    1.78 1.76 1.85 1.71
    9 New Zealand
    1.84 1.75 1.70 1.68
    NOTE: Shows U.S. shows improvement from 2005 to 2006
    9 United States
    1.84 1.90 1.85 1.86
    9 Australia
    1.84 1.84 1.93 1.95
    12 Canada
    1.85 1.91 1.98 2.00
    12 Finland
    1.85 1.90 2.00 1.85
    14 Chile
    1.88 1.86 1.91 2.06
    15 Switzerland
    1.89 1.85 1.84 1.88
    16 Netherlands
    1.90 1.95 2.09 2.00
    16 Cyprus
    1.90 2.13 2.00 2.14
    18 Austria
    1.95 2.09 2.13 2.08
    19 Germany
    1.96 2.00 2.08 2.03
    19 Sweden
    1.96 1.89 1.95 1.88

    ==============================================================

    Global Competitiveness Report
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Global Competitiveness Report is a yearly report published by the World Economic Forum. [1] The first report was released in 1979. The 2006-2007 report covers 125 major and emerging economies. The report ‘assesses the ability of countries to provide high levels of prosperity to their citizens. This in turn depends on how productively a country uses available resources. Therefore, the Global Competitiveness Index measures the set of institutions, policies, and factors that set the sustainable current and medium-term levels of economic prosperity.’ [2] It has been widely cited and used by many scholarly and peer-reviewed articles. [3]

    2007-2008 Rankings
    Note the improvement to #1 from #6 the year before, even under the tyrannical authority of the crypto-Communist Democratic-controlled Congress!
    Country
    US
    Switzerland
    Denmark
    Sweden
    Germany
    Finland
    Singapore
    Japan
    UK
    Netherlands
    Score
    5.67
    5.62
    5.55
    5.54
    5.51
    5.49
    5.45
    5.43
    5.41
    5.40

    ………………………………..
    Ranking 2006-2007
    # Country
    1 Switzerland
    2 Finland
    3 Sweden
    4 Denmark
    5 Singapore
    6 United States
    7 Japan
    8 Germany
    9 Netherlands
    10 United Kingdom

  11. Bravo Howard, It is unfortunate how bureaucracy trumps common sense.

    As a purveyor of a leading ATS that has gone to great lengths to support our clients’ compliance with EEOC and OFCCP regulations & reporting, I had sent copies of your article to several of my customers. We find one of the many problems employers face is that employment laws (and any laws for that matter) are subject to interpretation (the tax code is my favorite example) – so compliance is a nebulous target.

    Since recruiting is essentially the practice of discrimination (if choosing the most qualified candidate from a bunch of applicants isn’t discriminatory, I don’t know what is), some laws designed with the good intention of leveling the playing field for women and minorities etc have become reverse-discrimination. Just ask any university admissions counselor.

    In response to Joyce’s comment about the recruiting industry’s political clout, I encourage everyone to investigate the American Staffing Assn and their local SHRM organizations. These groups both have strong industry PACs and could use a lot more support and participation from people who want to stand up and say ENOUGH.

    Thanks to everyone for an interesting thread. ~Sylvia

    PS: As for Atlas Shrugged, I read it back in the 70’s and it’s still one of my favorite xmas gifts for high school and college students who tend to lean towards socialism until they start working for a living, or start a business of their own. Vote Libertarian!


    Sylvia Dahlby
    Phone: (480) 502-4513
    http://www.smartsearchonline.com

    >> SmartSearch >> Recruit the Right Way. Right away.
    Staffing Management & Talent Acquisition Software from APS, Inc.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    Any views or opinions expressed in this message via newsgroup posts are those of the author only and not necessarily those of Advanced Personnel Systems, Inc.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  12. As a person who has actually been the one to internally audit and provide the data to the OFCCP for their desk audits and any subsequent conciliation agreements, I would like to add my comments to this article.

    First, the idea that the OFCCP audits began just 2 years ago with the applicant definition is inaccurate. There may be INCREASED audits but the audits have been ongoing for years. OFCCP is not the agency that instituted the requirements for audits. You need to look to the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection which was originally produced in 1978. It is this document that clearly outlines what employers are required to do during their recruitment and selection process (http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/Title_41/Part_60-3/toc.htm). Many employers make their audits more difficult by not having written processes in place or having strong technology to support their processes.

    Secondly, let?s address who must respond to the OFCCP. If the employer is a federal contractor or subcontractor with either 100 full time employees or with 50 full time employees + $50k in contracts (although I?ve heard that this is being reduced to either $25k or $30k), then the employer is subject to the OFCCP regulations and must have affirmative action plans in place for minorities, women, veterans and persons with disabilities. When you are taking federal money in the course of your business, it is only right that an employer be audited for fair employment practices. It was Executive Order 11478, enacted in 1969 that requires employers to have AAPs.

    Now, let?s look to the myriad of federal laws that were enacted ? some as far back as 1931 ? to regulate fairness and good faith in working with the federal government. Germaine to this discussion are: FLSA (1938), Portal-to-Portal (1947) Equal Pay Act (1963), Title VII (1964), Service Contract Act (1965), Exec Order 11478 (1969), Fair Credit Reporting Act (1970), OSHA (1970), Rehabilitation Act (1973), Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Act (1974), Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978), USERRA (1994). These are just a few of the regulations that attempt to regulate fairness. It is the COMBINATION of these regulations, along with the OFCCP?s definition of applicant that are used to review and assess an employer?s GOOD FAITH efforts to maintain compliance.

    The OFCCP isn?t ?out to get? employers. The Good Faith covenant is applied in everything they do. While compiling the data may be difficult, the end result when an employer successfully passes the audit is that the employer knows they?ve done the best they can do within their industry, labor pool and processes. If recruiters are required to document a bit more about why a candidate/applicant wasn?t selected ? it only helps strengthen the employer?s position in their selection process.

    Finally, as a United States Navy veteran, I can attest that discrimination and unfair employment practices are alive and operating here in these United States. While I may not completely agree with how the OFCCP defined applicant, I can say the need for OFCCP audits will continue until all employers follow the standards set in each of the laws enacted. While it may be very painful for you as recruiters, I can tell you it?s just as painful for your internal auditors, as we have to look at ALL aspects of the employment practices, not just recruiting.

  13. I whole-heartedly agree with Denise’s comments. I think the fear-mongering and hearsay is what drives the misunderstanding and false images of agencies like OFCCP. If you are doing things right, their should be no fear but if you are not doing something right then there should be somebody to show you the right way. OFCCP audits thousands of companies every year and there are only a handful who get any kind of penalty. It’s like IRS which gets bad name for collecting money from cheaters and nobody pays attention to those who are doing the wrong things. People forget that it’s the politicians who make these legislations and leave it up to the agencies like OFCCP, EEOC, IRS etc. to carry out their orders. At the end everybody hates these agencies who have hardly anything to do with creating such legislations.
    Like everywhere else there are some good cops and some bad cops. Let’s focus on 95% of good cops and not focus on 5% bad cops.

  14. May I politely disagree? It’s one thing for a police officer to run radar on the side of the road to catch speeders. It’s quite another for a totalitarian regime to require drivers to purchase and maintain an expensive black box that records the vehicle’s speed AND then to randomly audit all cars, forcing drivers to prove their innocence.

    We’re innocent until proven guilty and we supposed to be protected from unreasonable searches. Such government regulations won’t kill any of us, but they are indeed raising the temperature of the water in the pot. And, if we don’t wake up soon, we’ll all be like the frogs who were boiled to death and unaware of the impending disaster.

  15. I almost never comment on the articles I write because I am the one that wrote it in the first place so it seems silly.

    However, let me just say this to Manoj Tiwari and I mean no disrespect but I have read what I can about your background and it does not appear that you are a recruiter that deals with this on a day in-day out manner. Also, the organization you work for is flavored with products and/or services that only become more valuable as OFCCP and government in general increases its grip and influence.

    Surely, you must see that as one whose business is, to a degree, tied, to government regulations, I am suspect of your real ability to suffer at the hands of the problems OFCCP creates.

    If you decide to recruit for a few years, you might develop a better understanding of the pain they have caused.

    I will leave it at that and not go back and fourth with you on this board as that seems silly but I just wanted to make a comment as it relates to your posting

    Howard Adamsky

  16. One quick comment on Denise Smith?s post and I will go back to my writing.

    I mean no disrespect but I have read what I can about your background and it does not appear that you are a recruiter that deals with this on a day in-day out manner so I question how much pain you feel.

    Please allow me to address one or two of your comments.

    First of all, allow me to say that no one ?takes? federal money. it is earned and earned big time because dealing with the government can be VERY difficult; almost frightening so.

    Secondly, I never said that the OFCCP is out to ?get anyone? but I do have expectations that OFCCP could have done a better job of defining a candidate. This task does not have the level of complexity of sending a person to Mars. They could have done a better job in terms of the resulting work product and you must see that.

    Tell me, if all companies working for the government produced work products of the same quality as OFCCP?s candidate definition, would that be acceptable? I hope not.

    In paragraph five, you elude to the fact that a ?good faith covenant? is applied to everything they do. Perhaps you are right as I am not there to see any of the good faith but any organization that needs the government to audit them ?to see that they have done the best they can within their industry, labor pool and processes? should look at the quality of work that the government does in the first place and go elsewhere for their revenue.

    In your last paragraph, you speak to the fact that ?discrimination and unfair employment practices are alive and operating here in these United States.? I am quite sure that you are right and I have seen it on many occasions. Perhaps the big break in our thinking comes from my orientation to people and how things might work differently. The great Thomas Szasz spoke of a society where there is a minimum of control from outside forces and a maximum control from internal forces. In other words, we need to do what is right. Sadly, when we fail as a society to do so, the government must step in and create laws. This is of course a sad reality but if it is to happen, it needs to be done with intelligent and well thought out programs that do not make those who bare the brunt of societies failure crazy by the end of their workday.

    Howard Adamsky

  17. Manoj and Denise:

    Manoj readily admits that out of thousands and thousands of audits only a handful are fined. So I ask, If there so few doing the bad deeds out there, why do we have multi-million and even billion dollar government agencies regulating this when we also have laws against discrimination? Why not let the judicial system handle this? The answer is $$$…big bucks that keep lobbyists, government agents, lawyers, and others pockets well-lined.

    Denise states that if employers are tapping into federal dollar pools ‘it is only right’ to audit them. Why is it that private for-profit companies that enter into contractual agreements usually don’t feel the need ‘prove’ their business partners are practicing fair employment? Because they need business partners that focus on what corporate America must do…earn a profit for shareholders. Profit is tied only to ‘fairness’ in that if profit is made, the benefit is realized by the largest pool of people possible. Government agencies cannot possibly regulate these things any better than our judicial processes.

  18. I could not agree more with those who believe the OFCCP and it’s laborious set of regulations accomplish very little and burden businesses with massive amounts of administrative costs. This is another example of a bloated bureaucracy attempting to extend it’s reach. There are plenty of laws currently on the books that penalize companies for discrimination and data suggests that most companies do an admirable job of complying. As one writer suggests; to have to prove that you are NOT breaking the law flys in the face of American jurisprudence. The only people I have ever spoken with who defend the new regulations are those who sell products or services that capitalize on OFCCP or the bureaucrats who think this stuff up.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *